Anyone have a better procedure for fixing this than the following?
Notice the feeling.
Treat it as a signal that your S1 wants you to search for cheaper ways to figure out which option is right than continuing to drive. Search for cheaper ways and execute them. Make it a thorough search and show your S1 the thoroughness of your search. Acknowledge the awfulness of “drive back and forth in an expensive search pattern” and only choose that as a last resort.
If you don’t immediately become much more certain of which way the hotel is in, and the “go 30mph” feeling does not go away, treat it as a signal that your S1 thinks the thought process by which you chose (under evidence-starvation) is wrong, which does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong.
List the ways your S1 thinks you’re biased which are screwing up your evidenced-starved reasoning.
Perform sanity-inducing rituals to counter those biases. (Think about your actual goal of getting to the hotel as soon as possible, forgive yourself for maybe driving past it, imagine all 4 outcomes (60mph forward, 60mph backward) x (get to hotel on next try after this, don’t get to hotel on next try after this) and how you would feel about them)
If the feeling is still there, this procedure has failed.
My current model is that closed/exploitation mode just can not handle ambiguity. So the generalized cue becomes: notice ambiguity->pop into open/exploration mode and figure out what heuristic I actually endorse->back to closed mode.
I agree, for a certain sense of the word “clearly”. The procedure is to make you clearly understand the implications of the situation, which can be harder for some instantiations of the situation.
Whomever downvoted this, can you explain what’s so bad about looking at a map before you go to directions unknown? Maps are simple to use AND provide useful information. There’s no reason not to use a map.
Anyone have a better procedure for fixing this than the following?
Notice the feeling.
Treat it as a signal that your S1 wants you to search for cheaper ways to figure out which option is right than continuing to drive. Search for cheaper ways and execute them. Make it a thorough search and show your S1 the thoroughness of your search. Acknowledge the awfulness of “drive back and forth in an expensive search pattern” and only choose that as a last resort.
If you don’t immediately become much more certain of which way the hotel is in, and the “go 30mph” feeling does not go away, treat it as a signal that your S1 thinks the thought process by which you chose (under evidence-starvation) is wrong, which does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is wrong.
List the ways your S1 thinks you’re biased which are screwing up your evidenced-starved reasoning.
Perform sanity-inducing rituals to counter those biases. (Think about your actual goal of getting to the hotel as soon as possible, forgive yourself for maybe driving past it, imagine all 4 outcomes (60mph forward, 60mph backward) x (get to hotel on next try after this, don’t get to hotel on next try after this) and how you would feel about them)
If the feeling is still there, this procedure has failed.
My procedure is probably similar cost, but more general:
State my goal(s), e.g. “get to the hotel”
Find the point of highest uncertainty towards the goal, e.g. “not sure if the hotel is ahead or behind me”
Come up with plans for reducing the uncertainty, e.g. “find the next gas station and ask someone”
Check whether the plan I have actually feels like it’ll work
Note that this can be applied pretty broadly, e.g. to business strategy, software design, making friends etc.
My current model is that closed/exploitation mode just can not handle ambiguity. So the generalized cue becomes: notice ambiguity->pop into open/exploration mode and figure out what heuristic I actually endorse->back to closed mode.
Open mode: generating checklists
Closed mode: executing checklists
Open and closed research summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qby0ed4aVpo
When the implications of the situation are clearly perceived, the right action is effortless.
I agree, for a certain sense of the word “clearly”. The procedure is to make you clearly understand the implications of the situation, which can be harder for some instantiations of the situation.
My solution is rather simple: use a map.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/bwp/please_dont_fight_the_hypothetical/
Whomever downvoted this, can you explain what’s so bad about looking at a map before you go to directions unknown? Maps are simple to use AND provide useful information. There’s no reason not to use a map.
It wasn’t me, but at a guess I’d say, irrelevance to the subject of the post. Which is not about how to find a hotel.